Premiership Rugby out of Heineken Cup?

01-10-2013 10:23AM

keps wrote: »

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2013/sep/30/welsh-rugby-union-heineken-cup

there's a really annoying "most likely outcome" in this article.

As far as I can tell, the BT deal is a deal signed by 1 representative of 12 of the ERC. (Contractually obliging the PRL teams only)

Whereas the Sky deal is a deal signed by the ERC (12/12)

Yet a more likely outcome is to terminate a contract signed by the latter in favour of one which has been contended to hamstring just that single representative?

errlloyd · 01-10-2013 10:27AM

I'm a little bit annoyed Rupert Murdoch hasn't got involved. But of phone hacking would go down really well right now.

rrpc · 01-10-2013 10:30AM

Deleted User wrote: »

there's a really annoying "most likely outcome" in this article.

As far as I can tell, the BT deal is a deal signed by 1 representative of 12 of the ERC. (Contractually obliging the PRL teams only)

Whereas the Sky deal is a deal signed by the ERC (12/12)

Yet a more likely outcome is to terminate a contract signed by the latter in favour of one which has been contended to hamstring just that single representative?

Don't forget it also suggests that the ERC winds itself up in order to avoid the Sky contract even though so doing would put it clearly in breach of that contract.

Somebody is either very naive or very stupid or both.

irishbucsfan · 01-10-2013 10:35AM

The English and French both wrote to Sky in advance of their deal with the ERC being signed to inform them they wouldn't be part of it.

Premiership Rugby didn't sign a contract with them and I have never seen any indication from anyone, ever, that they did. So no clue where this idea all 12 members of the ERC signed it has come from.

01-10-2013 10:48AM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The English and French both wrote to Sky in advance of their deal with the ERC being signed to inform them they wouldn't be part of it.

Premiership Rugby didn't sign a contract with them and I have never seen any indication from anyone, ever, that they did. So no clue where this idea all 12 members of the ERC signed it has come from.

But you'd be happy with the idea that more than one did anyway?

(Leaving to one side the issue of the ERC (12/12) appointed representatives signing a deal on the behalf of the ERC for now)

keps · 01-10-2013 10:57AM

I would say that the ERC executive signed on behalf on ERC as a whole - like the CEO/FO would sign a deal on behalf of any company.
It is legally binding.

rrpc · 01-10-2013 11:22AM

keps wrote: »

I would say that the ERC executive signed on behalf on ERC as a whole - like the CEO/FO would sign a deal on behalf of any company.
It is legally binding.

Indeed, the ERC is a company and AFAIK, the representatives are all directors of it and quite probably shareholders as well.

Directors are bound by decisions made by the board as a whole, there's no cherry-picking of decisions or bailing out of them on an a la carte basis. I can't see how writing to Sky would in any way absolve them of their corporate responsibilities.

Unless there's something in the M&A that specifies such decisions to be either unanimous or quorate with all present.

.ak · 01-10-2013 11:27AM

According to the ERC it was signed with all representatives aware of the deal and no objection was raised.

irishbucsfan · 01-10-2013 11:33AM

Deleted User wrote: »

But you'd be happy with the idea that more than one did anyway?

(Leaving to one side the issue of the ERC (12/12) appointed representatives signing a deal on the behalf of the ERC for now)

I would imagine it was signed by one of the Executives like Derek McGrath rather than the committee members.

irishbucsfan · 01-10-2013 11:35AM

rrpc wrote: »

Indeed, the ERC is a company and AFAIK, the representatives are all directors of it and quite probably shareholders as well.

Directors are bound by decisions made by the board as a whole, there's no cherry-picking of decisions or bailing out of them on an a la carte basis. I can't see how writing to Sky would in any way absolve them of their corporate responsibilities.

Unless there's something in the M&A that specifies such decisions to be either unanimous or quorate with all present.

Yes, but if the ERC are happy to go head without the unanimous support of it's members then there is a problem. Take for example their press release in September that lead everyone to believe Wheeler and Bouscatel had approved it and forced them to make a public statement that it had never even been voted on.

keps · 01-10-2013 11:37AM

from on online rugby blog... again comes with the usual health warning

I quote:

Let's pretend an imagined employee of a national rugby union had seen a copy of the BT deal. He could then give hypothetical explanations to the following recent occurrences.

"A few random musings:
Obviously in this litigious society no one should make statements in relation to other peoples private dealings without having proof. Therefore all we can do is make Hypothetical assumptions about what may be going on. Let's pretend an imagined employee of a national rugby union had seen a copy of the BT deal. He could then give hypothetical explanations to the following recent occurrences.
1) Why the PRL have been so vocal about trying to push their new European league on the rest of us and increasingly so as the deadline draws near.
2) Why the RFU have been so quiet about the whole matter.
3) The French clubs interest over an extended T14.
4) LNR representatives making references to “Contracts being signed” and “having to help the English from the mess they have created”.
5) And most importantly why no one has been shown a copy of the BT agreement except the RFU.

This imagined employee might say that the BT deal "Allegedly" states that:
1) The European pot is highly dependent on the number of tier 1 nation clubs taking part. Less than four nations and only travel costs for each team are paid. Only four and 50% is paid, 5 nation’s means 75% and all 6 are needed for the full 100%.
2) The European pot is for a “NEW” European cup of which the PRL, LNR and BT are the majority shareholders and control 60% of the vote,
3) The amount paid for the premier league is also highly dependent on the formation of a new PRL/LNR European Cup. The figure paid this year consists of a significant % of a “Signing on bonus” this applies to the first year only. For each successive year, a similar bonus exists dependent on the PRL having provided BT with a new European Cup. This is also graded according to the number of Tier 1 nations clubs involved, identical to the conditions above. Zero for less than 4, 75% for 5 etc. If PRL are not able to provide a new European Cup their league payments drop to a lower figure than the previous SKY deal.
4) The BT deal applies to all home games in England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. The percentages offered to Scotland, Wales and Ireland as stated by PRL are correct. They however receive around 50% of the total pot and France receives the remainder. How can this be true? Why is the LNR share smaller than now and Italy have none.
5) The LNR have been offered a share of the pot equal to that of Wales, Scotland and Ireland but have also been given the right to negotiate their own TV deal of which PRL will receive, an equal percentage as the LNR receive from the BT deal. To legitimise this based on TV markets, the Italians are allowed (have to) negotiate their own TV deal.
What would this all mean? Yes the other nations would all make more money than they are now. The PRL clubs will however make substantially more money than the Celts. 50% of BT deal plus 11% of LNR deal compared to just 11% of the BT deal for the Celts. The French stand to make even more from a new deal due to the competition between Canal and a new competitor.
However if a new European Cup does not come about the PRL will receive no European money, even for a French/English league. They will also lose their bonus league payments leaving them worse off financially than they are now. By signing the deal they excluded themselves from taking part in any ERC competition, hence it’s all or nothing for them. The LNR have signed a contract for a new European CUP but it is also conditional on having four Tier one nation members before coming into affect. This provides them with the guarantees but it also means they are not prohibited from re-entering the ERC.
This would explain why the RFU are the only ones who have been shown the Deal, and why they have refused to come out against the clubs. Despite not being in favour of the PRL’s actions they now have no choice but to allow a new European Cup or else most of the premier clubs will be bankrupt in time for the World Cup.

01-10-2013 11:38AM

Shelflife wrote: »

Gerry Thornley in the Times today:

"In France, the LNR chief executive Paul Goze has maintained the French clubs will not turn back and vowed that the French Federation “cannot force us to play” in the Heineken Cup, adding: “The French clubs can survive without the European Cup, but the Celtic and Italian teams cannot. Since the other competition (H Cup) will not take place, there is no alternative but to defend ours.”
However, Midi Olympique yesterday cited “several sources” in speculating that the FFR will announce, in the next few days, a hardening of its stance in opposition to the LNR’s attempts to forge a new breakaway competition and, what’s more, if the Top 14 clubs refuse to take part in the Heineken Cup, they will look to enter regional teams from outside the LNR umbrella."

It would appear that the FFR are going against the clubs here.

On a side note, if the clubs kill the international teams they will kill their own game. Internationals are the ultimate in PR. look at the amount of TV time alone that the games get, which in turn filters down to the clubs.

You only have to look a RL to see what difference a good international structure makes to the game on the ground.

The PRL remind me of the scorpion getting a lift across the river on the frogs back.........

God I hope the French union slaps those clubs back into place. In fact union owned franchises could be the best thing that ever happened to French rugby.

Unfortunately clubs think at maximum about to to three seasons down the road. They would threaten the international game just to fill the coffers for a couple of years, even if that meant risking the game's long term future. Sadly this is what happens when you involve private investors, they demand a short term return.

rrpc · 01-10-2013 11:39AM

keps wrote: »

from on online rugby blog... again comes with the usual health warning

I quote:

Let's pretend an imagined employee of a national rugby union had seen a copy of the BT deal. He could then give hypothetical explanations to the following recent occurrences....

It's been linked to before on this thread. Also partially quoted in comments to an IT article.

Clearlier · 01-10-2013 11:41AM

I just had a quick look at L'Equipe - a French sports daily newspaper - and was somewhat surprised at the tone. They call the English greedy, self-interested, loners and there's a clear belief that nothing will eventually come of this. The most interesting thing is that the author of the blog says that Goze is on something of a solo run with this and hasn't consulted with all of the Top 14 let alone League 2.

It's only L'Equipe - the rugby newspaper is Midi Olympique and I haven't looked at that or any of the websites. I also don't know the L'Equipe writers and/or any business angle that they or the newspaper might have on this. If I get time I'll take a wider look later. That said, the first few comments that I glanced at seemed to agree with the author of the blog.

It's worth a wider glance to try and get the real French view on this. I expect that it's not quite as far away from the English clubs as the articles suggest but if my preliminary look is any kind of guide (and it may not be) then it leaves the English clubs looking pretty isolated.

Edit to add links to articles:
http://coteouvert.blogs.lequipe.fr/cest-lance/
http://www.lequipe.fr/Rugby/Actualites/La-rcc-ouvre-les-portes/404362

keps · 01-10-2013 11:42AM

Sorry 'bout dat

rrpc · 01-10-2013 11:43AM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Yes, but if the ERC are happy to go head without the unanimous support of it's members then there is a problem. Take for example their press release in September that lead everyone to believe Wheeler and Bouscatel had approved it and forced them to make a public statement that it had never even been voted on.

That depends entirely on the rules of the company. If a majority vote is enough to carry a decision then it's perfectly binding. If for example, the board gave direction to carry out negotiations on their behalf and come to a new agreement, that's all that's needed as the individual(s) concerned have the full authority of the board.

There are so many ways that decisions can be reached and we just don't know what the internal mechanisms are nor do we have sight of the minutes of their meetings.

01-10-2013 11:45AM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I would imagine it was signed by one of the Executives like Derek McGrath rather than the committee members.

Someone who had been given the authority to do so by the other members I would have to assume?

As opposed to a single member's deal.

The article paints a 'likely' ending being that the other members of the ERC consider a deal taken by a single constituent of itself being more valid than a deal that it has entered into as a whole.

Pretty odd thing to do no?

irishbucsfan · 01-10-2013 12:07PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Someone who had been given the authority to do so by the other members I would have to assume?

Yes, and? That doesn't mean Wheeler or Bouscatel gave THEIR permission, just the committee as a whole. And they have done things without unanimous agreement before.

01-10-2013 12:13PM

Why do you keep missing the point I am raising?

How can 11 members 'respecting' the deal that 1 has forged (which does not involve them as far as I can see) instead of 'respecting' the deal that they have agreed on via a majority decision (at the very least) be the most likely outcome?

Winters · 01-10-2013 12:29PM

Because that 1 vote is far more important than those other 11 votes. Jeez Emmet have you not been listening?

ArmaniJeanss · 01-10-2013 12:29PM

wittycynic wrote: »

God I hope the French union slaps those clubs back into place. In fact union owned franchises could be the best thing that ever happened to French rugby.

I hope the French club structure survives and thrives.
Just because it isn't a suitable professional structure for us or Wales/Scotland for population/financial reasons doesn't mean it isn't the most desirable structure.

That a small town in southern France can dream of moving up through the divisions, competing in and winning the Top14 and even becoming European champions is sport at its most noble.
Going the regional/franchise route and saying that all they can ever hope to be is a feeder for some regional Brittany or Langeudoc team would be terrible.

rrpc · 01-10-2013 12:30PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Yes, and? That doesn't mean Wheeler or Bouscatel gave THEIR permission, just the committee as a whole. And they have done things without unanimous agreement before.

What's your point? Do you know for a fact that they were required to give their agreement before the deal was binding? Do you know for a fact that they hadn't already given their agreement to negotiate and sign a new contract?

We don't know much of anything, we are speculating based on some very limited quotes and reports.

Here are two:

ERC wrote:

It was unanimously agreed at an ERC Board meeting on 6 June, 2012 that ERC would conclude a new four-year agreement with Sky Sports. Premiership Rugby was party to that decision

PRL wrote:

We also note ERC's reference to its board meeting on 6 June, 2012. No specific broadcast deal was presented or voted on at this or any subsequent ERC board meeting.

The substance of both of these quotes could be correct.

Larbre34 · 01-10-2013 12:48PM

Its pretty clear the way the brinksmanship is going. ERC can afford to carry on as normal with its current season tournaments and if no successor under their stewardship is forthcoming, the executive can turn off the lights at the end of May and go their separate ways like the end of Ocean's 11.

However, the PR/LNR agenda needs to gain some substance and quickly. They have no track record, no intellectual capital if you like and if they arent seen to be progressing then the partners to the 'deals' they have brokered will get very skittish very soon and start nailing them over non-performance.

Each day this continues, yet more sweat is gathering on the brow of McCafferty and his lieutenants, as their strategy fails, they dont really have a Plan B. But for the clubs they have left hanging off a precarious financial hook the only option will be to return to the mothership, who have a decently lucrative and successful format ready to carry on.

danthefan · 01-10-2013 12:48PM

http://www.lemonde.fr/sport/article/2013/10/01/rugby-la-coupe-d-europe-bis-ne-verra-pas-le-jour_3487656_3242.html

I don't really speak French, but I believe this says the PRL/French competition is dead in the water?

rrpc · 01-10-2013 12:55PM

danthefan wrote: »

http://www.lemonde.fr/sport/article/2013/10/01/rugby-la-coupe-d-europe-bis-ne-verra-pas-le-jour_3487656_3242.html

I don't really speak French, but I believe this says the PRL/French competition is dead in the water?

What's really interesting is that despite saying they wouldn't talk to the mediator, the PRL apparently are.*

*According to l'Equipe

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience · 01-10-2013 12:55PM

danthefan wrote: »

http://www.lemonde.fr/sport/article/2013/10/01/rugby-la-coupe-d-europe-bis-ne-verra-pas-le-jour_3487656_3242.html

I don't really speak French, but I believe this says the PRL/French competition is dead in the water?

If I'm reading that correctly it's saying that the competition has been rejected by the IRB?

Clearlier · 01-10-2013 01:02PM

danthefan wrote: »

http://www.lemonde.fr/sport/article/2013/10/01/rugby-la-coupe-d-europe-bis-ne-verra-pas-le-jour_3487656_3242.html

I don't really speak French, but I believe this says the PRL/French competition is dead in the water?

It basically says that the IRB will under no circumstances consider approving the creation of the new competition proposed by the PRL and supported by Goze. The governance of the game should remain with the unions.

It also says that PRL are talking to the mediator and that the ERC are happy to adjust revenues (which IMO is all that this is about) so that the English and French clubs get 25% and the rest share the other 50%. There are two comments. The first accuses Goze of wanting to kill the European cup so he can create a Top 16 thus guaranteeing his clubs (Perpignan) continued participation and the second say that the first is paranoid and that it's all about money but it's a bad idea to give the clubs more money because they'll just give it to the players.

Winters · 01-10-2013 01:03PM

rrpc wrote: »

What's really interesting is that despite saying they wouldn't talk to the mediator, the PRL apparently are.*

*According to l'Equipe

I'd say the meeting of Quentin Smith and Greame Mew is like David Brent meeting Michael Scott.

Winters · 01-10-2013 01:04PM

Clearlier wrote: »

It basically says that the IRB will under no circumstances consider approving the creation of the new competition proposed by the PRL and supported by Goze. The governance of the game should remain with the unions.

It also says that PRL are talking to the mediator and that the ERC are happy to adjust revenues (which IMO is all that this is about) so that the English and French clubs get 25% and the rest share the other 50%. There are two comments. The first accuses Goze of wanting to kill the European cup so he can create a Top 16 thus guaranteeing his clubs (Perpignan) continued participation and the second say that the first is paranoid and that it's all about money but it's a bad idea to give the clubs more money because they'll just give it to the players.

I read that as being the revenue is that and will change to 33% each. Leaving cert French eh?

thomond2006 · 01-10-2013 01:07PM

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience wrote: »

If I'm reading that correctly it's saying that the competition has been rejected by the IRB?

Yes, but the IRB are willing to concede to some changes to the current Heineken Cup.

Premiership Rugby out of Heineken Cup?

Comments